Media Practice and Everyday Agency in Europe

edited by Leif Kramp, Nico Carpentier, Andreas Hepp, Ilija Tomanić Trivundža, Hannu Nieminen, Risto Kunelius, Tobias Olsson, Ebba Sundin and Richard Kilborn

The European Media and Communication Doctoral Summer School brings together a group of highly qualified doctoral students as well as lecturing senior researchers and professors from a diversity of European countries. The main objective of the fourteen-day summer school is to organise an innovative learning process at doctoral level, focusing primarily on enhancing the quality of individual dissertation projects through an intercultural and interdisciplinary exchange and networking programme. This said, the summer school is not merely based on traditional postgraduate teaching approaches like lectures and workshops. The summer school also integrates many group-centred and individual approaches, especially an individualised discussion of doctoral projects, peer-to-peer feedback - and a joint book production.

The topic “Media Practice and Everyday Agency in Europe” is dedicated to the fundamental question: How is media change related to the everyday agency and sense making practices of the people in Europe? This volume consists of the intellectual work of the 2013 European Media and Communi-cation Doctoral Summer School, organized in cooperation with the European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA) at the ZeMKI, the Centre for Media, Communication and Information Research of the Uni-versity of Bremen, Germany. The chapters cover relevant research topics, structured into four sections: “Dynamics of Mediatization”, “Transformations”, “Methods”, and “The Social”.

E C R E A

Kram

p, C

arpe

ntie

r, H

epp,

Tom

anić

Triv

undž

a, N

iem

inen

, Kun

eliu

s, O

lsso

n, S

undi

n, K

ilbor

n (E

ds.):

Med

ia P

ract

ice

and

Ever

yday

Age

ncy

in E

urop

e

edition lumièreedition lumière9 783943 245288

ISBN 978-3-943245-28-8

Table of Contents 5

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTIONS

Leif Kramp, Nico Carpentier and Andreas HeppIntroduction: Investigating the Everyday Presence of Media .......................... 9

Anne Kaun, Benjamin de Cleen and Christian SchwarzeneggerNavigating “Academia Incognita”: The European Media and Communication Doctoral Summer School and ECREA’s Young Scholars Network ............... 23

PART 1ReseaRch

SECTION 1: Dynamics of meDiatization

Nick CouldryMediatization: What Is It?.............................................................................. 33

Knut LundbyNotes on Interaction and Mediatization ......................................................... 41

Sonia LivingstoneThe Mediatization of Childhood and Education: Reflections on The Class .. 55

Friedrich KrotzFrom a Social Worlds Perspective to the Analysis of Mediatized Worlds ..... 69

Andreas HeppCommunicative Figurations: Researching Cultures of Mediatization ........... 83

Risto KuneliusLessons of the Lament: Footnotes on the Mediatization Discourse ............ 101

Dorothee Christiane MeierDoctor-Patient Relationship in a Digitalised World ..................................... 115

6 Table of Contents

SECTION 2: transformations

Minna SaariketoImagining Alternative Agency in Techno-Society : Outlining the Basis of Cri-tical Technology Education .......................................................................... 129

Auksė BalčytienėThe Alchemy of Central and East European Media Transformations: Historical Pathways, Cultures and Consequences ........................................................ 139

Irena ReifováOntological Security in the Digital Age: The Case of Elderly People Using New Media ................................................................................................... 153

Svenja OttovordemgentschenfeldeReconfiguring Practices, Identities and Ideologies: Towards Understanding Professionalism in an Age of Post-Industrial Journalism ............................ 163

SECTION 3: methoDs

Bertrand CabedocheAdvantages and Limitations of a Text Analysis to Reveal the Strategic Action of Social Actors. The Example of Cultural Diversity .................................. 177

Rosa FranquetAnalysing Media Production: The Benefits and Limits of Using Ethnographic Methodology ................................................................................................ 195

Erik KnudsenMedia Effects as a Two-Sided Field: Comparing Theories and Research of Framing and Agenda Setting ........................................................................ 207

Ilija Tomanić TrivundžaRecords of Facts or Records of Mystification? Brief Notes on the “Surplus Value” of the Photographic Image ............................................................... 217

Leif KrampMedia Studies without Memory? Institutional, Economic and Legal Issues of Accessing Television Heritage in the Digital Age ....................................... 227

Maria Murumaa-Mengel and Andra SiibakRoles of a Researcher: Reflections after Doing a Case-Study with Youth on a Sensitive Topic ............................................................................................. 249

François HeinderyckxAcademic Schizophrenia: Communication Scholars and the Double Bind . 261

Table of Contents 7

SECTION 4: the social

Riitta PeräläEngaging with Media in a Fragmented Media Environment ....................... 273

Hannu Nieminen and Anna-Laura MarkkanenA Crooked Balance of Interests? Comparing Users’ Rights in Printed and Elec-tronic Books ................................................................................................. 285

Fausto ColomboToo Easy to Say Blog: Paradoxes of Authenticity on the Web .................... 297

Tobias OlssonIn a Community, or Becoming a Commodity? Critical Reflections on the “So-cial” in Social Media .................................................................................... 309

Nico CarpentierParticipation as a Fantasy: A Psychoanalytical Approach to Power-Sharing Fantasies ....................................................................................................... 319

Ane Møller Gabrielsen and Ingvild Kvale SørenssenReassembling the Social .............................................................................. 331

PART 2The euRopean Media and coMMunicaTion docToRal suMMeR school 2013 and iTs paRTicipanTs

Jan Babnik .................................................................................................... 335Gábor Bernáth .............................................................................................. 336Ilze Berzina .................................................................................................. 337Erna Bodström ............................................................................................. 338Yiannis Christidis ......................................................................................... 339Michael Cotter ............................................................................................. 340Joanna Doona ............................................................................................... 341Victoria Estevez ........................................................................................... 342Katharina Fritsche ........................................................................................ 343Roman Hájek ............................................................................................... 344Nele Heise .................................................................................................... 345Lisette Johnston ........................................................................................... 346Slavka Karakusheva ..................................................................................... 347Erik Knudsen ............................................................................................... 348Dorothee Christiane Meier ........................................................................... 349Cassandre Molinari ...................................................................................... 350

8 Table of Contents

Anne Mollen ................................................................................................ 351Tatyana Muzyukina ...................................................................................... 352Svenja Ottovordemgentschenfelde .............................................................. 353Venetia Papa ................................................................................................. 354Mari-Liisa Parder ......................................................................................... 355Riitta Perälä .................................................................................................. 356Gina Plana .................................................................................................... 357Sanne Margarethe de Fine Licht Raith ........................................................ 358Miia Rantala ................................................................................................. 359Cindy Roitsch............................................................................................... 360Ulrike Roth ................................................................................................... 361Nanna Särkkä ............................................................................................... 362Minna Saariketo ........................................................................................... 363Dana Schurmans .......................................................................................... 364Natalie Schwarz ........................................................................................... 365Irene Serrano Vázquez ................................................................................. 366Katarzyna Sobieraj ....................................................................................... 367Melodine Sommier ....................................................................................... 368Ingvild Kvale Sørenesen .............................................................................. 369Neil Stevenson ............................................................................................. 370Mariola Tarrega ............................................................................................ 371Khaël Velders ............................................................................................... 372Zhan Zhang .................................................................................................. 373Wenyao Zhao ............................................................................................... 374Elisabetta Zuvorac ....................................................................................... 375

Media Effects as a Two-Sided Field 207

Media Effects as a Two-Sided Field: Comparing Theo-ries and Research of Framing and Agenda Setting

Erik Knudsen

1. Introduction

Within media and communication studies there is a long tradition concerning media effects, emphasising how the media can exert effects on an audience. For instance, the theory of agenda setting assumes that the audience will regard an issue as more important when the issue is prominent and frequently covered in the news. However, media effect theories such as framing concentrate on examining how content is presented, not only the effects on an audience. Thus, the claim made in this chapter is that the field of media effects research is a two sided research field – a field that not only emphasises the effects on the audi-ence, but also includes studies of the content itself. This claim is examined by comparing theories and research of framing and agenda setting – investigating different approaches and clarifying the differences and similarities between the two theories.

The chapter starts by placing agenda setting theory and framing theory within the history of media effects research and then giving an overview of different definitions of the two theories. After this, the two theories are com-pared – illustrating the claim that the study of media effects is a two-sided research field.

2. The history of media effects

McQuail (2010: 454) states that “the entire study of mass communication is based on the assumption that the media have significant effects (…)”. Howev-er, McQuail adds that there is great disagreement in the literature concerning the nature and extent of media effects.

Knudsen, E. (2014) ‘Media Effects as a Two-Sided Field: Comparing Theories and Research of Framing and Agenda Setting’, pp. 207-216 in L. Kramp/N. Carpentier/A. Hepp/I. Tomanić Trivundža/H. Nieminen/R. Kunelius/T. Olsson/E. Sundin/R. Kilborn (eds.) Media Practice and Everyday Agency in Europe. Bremen: edition lumière.

208 Erik Knudsen

Building on the suggestion that there has been several paradigm shifts within the field of media effects research throughout the 20th century (Mc-Quail, 2010), the latest suggested paradigm shift contains research viewing media as having a strong potential attitudinal effects, such as framing (Scheufe-le/Tewksbury, 2007). The paradigm shifts has evolved from the simple magic bullet and persuasion paradigm in the 1920s and 1930s, to the understanding of communication as a much more complicated process with the People’s Choice study (Lazarsfeld et al., 1948) and the two step flow communication (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955). The theory of cultivation (Gerbner and Gross, 1974) and the return of powerful mass media (Noelle-Neumann, 1973) marked a new paradigm, suggesting that the media exerted a significant attitudinal effect. During the same paradigm McCombs and Shaw (1972) launched the theory of agenda setting. This theory led up to the current paradigm, labelled “negation models” (Scheufele and Tewksbury, 2007).

3. A definition of agenda setting

When there is a relationship between intense media coverage of a certain is-sue and public attention towards the same issue, this is often referred to as a potential effect of the media’s agenda setting function and the salience of an issue. If, for instance, one news topic is dwarfing all other news topics, it is also more likely that the general public will notice the issue that’s reported (McCombs/Reynolds, 2009). Since McCombs and Shaw (1972) carried out their well-known Chapel Hill study of the agenda setting function, there has been a substantial amount of research within this research area (see: Bryant/Miron, 2004).

Thus, a key element in agenda setting studies is measures of how salient an issue is – both in the media coverage and in among the public’s opinion. There is a diversity of different approaches of measuring salience of an issue. Early measures used Gallup Polls asking the question: “What is the most im-portant issue facing the country today?” (McCombs, 2004, For an example see also: Iyengar/Simon, 1993). Another approach is pairing issues, obliging the respondent to rate the most important issue of the two (McCombs, 2004). To measure the agenda setting function of the media, these measurements of an issue’s salience to the public is linked to a content analysis of the media cov-erage. However, Erbring et al. (1980) criticized this “mirror image” approach, arguing that it ignored the fact that issue concerns can arise from other sources than the media, for instance from personal experience and group perspectives and everyday surroundings. Consequently some improved measurement in-

Media Effects as a Two-Sided Field 209

volved tracing the salience issue by issue, using different five-point scales, measuring the importance of the issue, extent of discussion with friends, and need for government action (McCombs, 2004).

In addition, researchers has investigated frequency and presentation of certain news in terms of attributions such as a positive or negative tone and comparing amount of negative/positive press and negative/positive attitudes towards an issue (Sheafer, 2007, Carroll/McCombs, 2003, Miller et al., 2013). This is often labelled the second level of agenda setting. Thus, the first level consists of the media influencing what the public think about, and the second consists of the media influencing how people think about it (Ghanem, 1997).

4. Defining framing

The term framing has a number of different definitions, and suffers from a lack of consensus within the journalism and communication literature concerning what the term means and how it should be conceptualized. However, I would argue that there is one element on which there is a general agreement upon: that framing as a theory of media effect (at least) relates to how a message is presented, rather than what is presented.

Thus, one can understand the term framing at a macro level as how the news is presented (and how this would affect the content), and at a micro level how certain elements in a news narrative would affect the reader. This pro-cess can be further divided in media frames and audience frames1 (Scheufe-le, 1999). As such, the theory builds on the assumption that how the media discuss, reflect upon, or choose a certain angle to tell a news story (media frames) can have an influence on how the public views important social issues (audience frames) – not which issues the public views as important (Scheufele/Tewksbury, 2007).

The term has roots in both sociology (Goffman, 1974) anthropology (Bateson, 1955) and psychology (Bartlett, 1932, Tversky/Kahneman, 1981) but became a buzz-word within media and communication studies after the publication of Entman’s (1993) article “[f]raming as a fractured paradigm” (See: Vliegenthart/van Zoonen, 2011: 102). One of the most cited definitions of the term (See: Matthes, 2009) is Entman’s (1993) definition, explaining that news framing primarily involve selection and salience – making information more highlighted and noticeable to an audience. Furthermore Entman defined framing as follows:

To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and / or treatment recommendation for the item described (Entman, 1993: 52, italics removed).

210 Erik Knudsen

However, a range of other definitions has been presented in the literature. For instance that “[f]rames are organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the so-cial world” (Reese et al., 2001: 11) and that frames are the “central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events” (Gam-son/Modigliani, 1987: 143).

4.1. Different understandings of framing

Entman (1993: 51) referred to framing as “a scattered conceptualization” and Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) claimed that the there is an absence of consistency concerning how news frames are conceptualized and measured. Scheufele and Iyengar (forthcoming: 11) went even further – formulating that the framing literature has been divided into two schools of thought. The first school of thought, seeing framing as closely related to priming and agenda setting, and the second as a result of “variations in the mode of presentation for a given piece of information” – not different facts or aspects of an issue.

Iyengar (1991) divided news frames into two journalistic ways of pre-senting a story: the episodic news frame and the thematic news frame. The episodic frame can be understood as news that focuses on individuals and indi-vidual events, and discusses the public policy debate in terms of specific cases. For example, the media can describe unemployment by interviewing a laid off worker. The thematic news frame is more general. Here the media can describe unemployment by referring to official unemployment reports or changes in the welfare system (Iyengar, 2010: 279). Another example of understanding framing as news narratives is Capella and Jamieson’s (1996, 1997) examining of politics as ‘game’ or ‘strategy’. Framing can also be linked to linguistic approaches. For instance, the increased intention towards terrorists after 9/11 can also be presented as a “war on terror” (Reese, 2009), decrease in tax can be framed “tax relief” and paying tax can be framed as a “national service” (Lakoff, 2004).

4.2. Different approaches to doing framing analysis

There is a diversity of different approaches for doing framing analysis, with fundamental differences such as inductive and deductive reasoning. Matthes and Kohring (2008) explain that framing analysis has been conducted with a hermeneutic approach, a linguistic approach and a deductive approach. The hermeneutic approach has received critique because of the reliability and va-

Media Effects as a Two-Sided Field 211

lidity relied upon the transparency of how the frames were extracted. The lin-guistic approach received critique because it was difficult to make a standard-ized frame analysis of large text samples (Matthes/Kohring 2008).

The deductive approach theoretically derived frames from the literature and coded them in a standard quantitative content analysis. For instance Sem-etko and Valkenburg (2000) identified five common generic news frames: re-sponsibility, conflict, human interest, economic consequences, and morality. This approach received critique because of its inflexibility when it comes to identifying new frames (Matthes/Kohring, 2008).

5. Comparing agenda setting and framing

Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) argues that that what sets framing theory apart from the agenda setting theory is that how, and not necessarily how much, an issue is covered can assert an effect. However, McCombs and Ghanem (2001) argue that the agenda setting theory is an umbrella theory for the framing theo-ry. McCombs (1997: 37) argues that framing is the same as the second level of agenda setting, explaining that ‘‘framing is the selection of a restricted number of thematically related attributes for inclusion on the media agenda when a particular object is discussed’’ (McCombs, 1997).

Building on Scheufele and Iyengar’s (forthcoming) division of two schools of thought, the other understanding of framing is not linked to second level agenda setting, but rather the alterations of the presentation of the same message. This meaning of framing is arguably closely linked to the linguist Lakoff’s (2004) use of the term. For instance, a message can be presented with a loaded term instead of a neutral term, i.e. “tax relief” instead of “decreas-ing taxes”. The choice of presentation will affect the meaning of the message, but not the message. The opposite, as explained by Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007), would be a comparison of different social issues, such as financial risk and social consequences, because this is not referring to different modes of presentation of the same message, but comparing two different messages. Thus, Weaver (2007: 144) maintained that the difference between second level agenda setting and framing depends on how framing is defined.

Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that framing can work through agenda setting, because a particular frame (i.e. “tax relief” instead of “tax de-crease”) can be put on the agenda. This can be illustrated by a Norwegian pow-er line debate2. The debate concerned the construction of high voltage masts in Hardanger – an area known for beautiful fjords and tourism attractions. The opposition to the construction of these power lines presented, or framed, the high voltage masts as the loaded term “monster masts”. The issue became the

212 Erik Knudsen

fourth largest issue in the Norwegian press in 2010, and the term “monster masts” was seized upon by journalists and became a part of the journalistic terminology for describing the issue (Knudsen, 2011).

Within both schools of thought, a number of framing studies investigate both the framing of the content, and the effects on an audience. For instance, Huang (1996) combines a conceptualization and study of media frames, as well as survey data capturing audience frames. Iyengar (1991, 1987, 1989), Gamson (1992), Price (1997) and Lecheler and de Vreese (2013) also link a conceptualization of frames to effects on the audience.

The two schools of thought also seem to agree upon that studies of fram-ing do not have to include studies of effects on an audience. For instance, Entman (1991) analysed news narratives and news frames of the downing of an Iranian airplane and a Korean airplane through content analysis. He concep-tualized framing as describing “attributes of the news itself” (Entman, 1991: 7), and theoretically predicted a relationship between the media frames and the effects on the audience and political elites. The deductive approach by Semet-ko and Valkenburg (2000) and the examining of horse race framing by Schuck et al. (2013), is another example of examining the media frames – not the audience frames. One could argue that a framing analysis of content, and not the effects on the audience, should not be regarded as studies of media effects. Nevertheless, Entman et al. (2009) argued that framing allows for studying the communication process as a whole, and distinguished between five different studies of frames: strategic frames, journalistic frames, news frames (or media frames) and framing effects. As such, Pan and Kosicki (1993: 55) summed up the value of only investigating the content as “an initial step toward analyzing the news discourse process as a whole”.

In comparison, the studies of agenda setting have primarily focused on the correlation between salience of news content, and public opinion surveys. An explanation for this could be that the very premise of agenda setting theory is that there is link between the media’s agenda and the public’s agenda.

6. Conclusion

This article has compared framing and agenda setting theory to investigate the claim that the theories regarding media effects are two-sided. The reasoning for this claim suggested that the first, the origins of effect studies, investigated effects on attitudes and behaviour, and that effect studies such as framing also include a study of the content itself – without studying the effect on audience.

I would argue that agenda setting is an example on the first, often linking content analysis of news coverage to surveys of public opinion. Framing, how-ever, has several different approaches – and understandings – of what a fram-

Media Effects as a Two-Sided Field 213

ing is, and how to measure it. Some understands framing as a central part of agenda setting (McCombs/Ghanem, 2001), others as variations of presentation of the same message. Moreover, framing is understood as a central organising idea (Garrison/Modigliani, 1987), others as journalistic working routines (Git-lin, 1980: 7) and patterns of news coverage (Iyengar, 1991, Cappella/Jamieson, 1996, Cappella/Jamieson, 1997).

A number of studies investigate both the framing of the content, and the effects on an audience. There is, however, also several studies (i.e. Entman, 1993, Pan/Kosicki, 1993, Semetko/Valkenburg, 2000) investigating the fram-ing in news content, without linking the news frames to the effects on the audi-ence. A reasonable counter argument would be that studies that do not study ef-fects on an audience should not be regarded as studies within the field of media effects. However, I would argue that analysis of speculative effects and studies of pure content should be included in the field of media effects research. The reasoning for this is that framing allows us to study the whole communication process – starting with elements affecting a journalist and journalistic priori-ties, to how journalists choose to present a news story, and how the content is presented, and finally how the news story is perceived by the audience. As such, investigating the content is one important step to understand the whole communication process. This supports the claim made in this chapter – that media effects research not only concerns the effects on the audience, but also include studies of the content itself.

Notes

1 There is also a debate in the literature regarding how framing works (i.e. see: Scheufele & Iyeng-ar forthcoming). However, this chapter will not focus on how framing affects an audience.

2 See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/world/europe/11norway.html?_r=0 .

References

Bartlett, F. (1932) Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bateson, G. (1955) ‘A theory of play and fantasy’, Psychiatric research reports 2: 39-51.Bryant, J., Miron, D. (2004) ‘Theory and Research in Mass Communication’, Journal of Commu-

nication 54(4): 662-704.Cappella, J. N./Jamieson, K. H. (1996) ‘News frames, political cynicism, and media cynicism’,

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 546: 71-84.Cappella, J. N./Jamieson, K. H. (1997) Spiral of cynicism: the press and the public good. New

York: Oxford University Press.Carroll, C. E./McCombs, M. (2003) ‘Agenda-setting Effects of Business News on the Public‘s

Images and Opinions about Major Corporations’, Corporate Reputation Review 6(1): 36-46.

214 Erik Knudsen

Entman, R. M./Matthes, J./Pellicano, L. (2009) ‘Nature, sources and effects of news framing’, pp. 175-191 in K.Wahl-Jorgensen/T. Hanitzsch (eds.) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge.

Entman, R. M. (1993) ‘Framing - toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm’, Journal of Com-munication 43(4): 51-58.

Entman, R. M. (1991) ‘Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents’, Journal of Communication 41(4): 6-27.

Erbring, L./Goldenberg, E. N./Miller, A. H. (1980) ‘Front-Page News and Real-World Cues: A New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media’, American Journal of Political Science 24(1): 16-49.

Gamson, W. A. (1992) Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Gamson, W. A, Modigliani, A. (1987) ‘The changing culture of affirmative action’, pp. 137-177

in R. G. Braungart/M. M. Braungart (eds.) Research in political sociology. Greenwich: JAI Press.

Gerbner, G./Gross, L. (1974) ‘System of cultural indicators’, Public Opinion Quarterly 38: 460-461.

Ghanem, S. (1997) ‘Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting’, pp. 3-14 in M. Mc-Combs/D. L. Shaw/D. Weaver (eds.) Communication and democracy. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Gitlin, T. (1980) The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goffman, E. (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harp-er & Row.

Huang, K. S. (1996, May) ‘A comparison between media frames and audience frames: The case of the Hill-Thomas controversy’. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Chicago.

Iyengar, S. (1987) ‘Television news and citizens‘ explanations of national affairs’, American Po-litical Science Review 81: 815-831.

Iyengar, S. (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press

Iyengar, S. (1989) ‘How Citizens Think about National Issues: A Matter of Responsibility’, Amer-ican Journal of Political Science 33(4): 878-900.

Iyengar, S. (2010) ‘The state of media-effects research’, pp. 273-290 in J. Curran (ed.) Media and society. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Iyengar, S./Simon, A. (1993) ‘News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public Opinion: A Study of Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing’, Communication Research 20(3): 365-383.

Katz, E., Lazarsfeld, Paul F. (1955) Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York: Free Press.

Knudsen, E. (2011) Monsterjournalistikken: Pressens rolle i Hardangersaken (Monster journal-ism: the role of the press in the Hardanger case). Unpublished master thesis, Department of Information Science and Media Studies. Bergen: University of Bergen.

Lakoff, G. (2004) Don‘t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Lazarsfeld, P. M./Berelson, B. R./Gaudet, H. (1948 ) The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.

Lecheler, S., de Vreese, C. H. (2013) ‘What a Difference a Day Makes? The Effects of Repetitive and Competitive News Framing Over Time’, Communication Research 40(2): 147-175.

Matthes, J. (2009) ‘What‘s in a Frame? A Content Analysis of Media Framing Studies in the World‘s Leading Communication Journals, 1990-2005’, Journalism & Mass Communica-tion Quarterly 86: 349-367.

Matthes, J./Kohring, M. (2008) ‘The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliabil-ity and validity’, Journal of Communication 58(2): 258-279.

Media Effects as a Two-Sided Field 215

McCombs, M. (1997) ‘New frontiers in agenda setting: Agendas of attributes and frames’, Mass Comm Review 24(1-2): 35-52.

McCombs, M./Ghanem, S. I. (2001) ‘The Convergence of Agenda Setting and Framing’, pp. 67-83 in S. D. Reese/O.H. Gandy/A. E. Grant (eds.) Framing public life: perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCombs, M., Reynolds, A. (2009) ‘How the News Shape Our Civic Agenda’, pp. 1-17 in J. Bryant/M. B. Oliver (eds.) Media effects: advances in theory and research. New York: Rou-tledge.

McCombs, M. E. (2004) Setting the agenda: the mass media and public opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.

McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L. (1972) ‘The Agenda-setting Function of Mass Media’, Public Opin-ion Quarterly 36(2): 176-187.

McQuail, D. (2010) McQuail‘s mass communication theory. London et al.: Sage.Miller, E. A./Tyler, D. A./Mor, V. (2013) ‘National Newspaper Portrayal of Nursing Homes: Tone

of Coverage and Its Correlates’, Medical Care 51(1): 78-83. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1973) ‘Return to the concept of powerful mass media’, Studies in Broad-

casting 9: 67–11.Pan, Z., Kosicki, G. M. (1993) ‘Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse’, Political Com-

munication 10: 55-75.Price, V./Tewksbury, D./Powers, E. (1997) ‘Switching trains of thought: The impact of news

frames on readers‘ cognitive responses’, Communication Research 24(5): 481-506.Reese, S. D. (2009) ‘Finding frames in a web of culture: the case of the war on terror’, pp 17-43

in J. A. Kuypers/P. D‘Angelo (eds.) Doing news framing analysis: empirical and theoretical perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Reese, S. D./Gandy, O. H./Grant, A. E. (2001) Framing public life: perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Scheufele, D./Iyengar, S. (forthcoming) ‘The state of framing research: a call for new directions’ in K. Kenski/K. H. Jamieson (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication The-ories. New York: Oxford University Press.

Scheufele, D. A (1999) ‘Framing as a theory of media effects’, Journal of Communication, 49: 103-122.

Scheufele, D./Tewksbury, D. (2007) ‘Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models’, Journal of Communication 57(1): 9-20.

Schuck, A. R. T./Vliegenthart, R./Boomgaarden, H. G./Elenbaas, M./Azrout, R./van Spanje, J./de Vreese C.H. (2013) ‘Explaining Campaign News Coverage: How Medium, Time, and Con-text Explain Variation in the Media Framing of the 2009 European Parliamentary Elections’, Journal of Political Marketing 12(1): 8-28.

Semetko, H. A./Valkenburg, P. M. (2000) ‘Framing European Politics: A Content Analysis of Press and Television News’, European Journal of Communication 50(2): 93-109.

Sheafer, T. (2007) ‘How to Evaluate It: The Role of Story-Evaluative Tone in Agenda Setting and Priming’, Journal of Communication 57(1): 21-39.

Tversky, A./Kahneman, D. (1981) ‘The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice’, Sci-ence 211: 453-458.

Vliegenthart, R./van Zoonen, L. (2011) ‘Power to the frame: Bringing sociology back to frame analysis’, European Journal of Communication 26(2): 101-115.

Weaver, D. H. (2007) ‘Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming’. Journal of Commu-nication 57(1): 142-147.

216 Erik Knudsen

Biography

Erik Knudsen is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Information Science and Media Studies at the University of Bergen, Norway. Knudsen investigates how a Norwegian welfare reform is framed in the media coverage, and com-pares the media coverage with the public’s opinion concerning the welfare reform.

Contact: Erik.Knudsen@infomedia.uib.no